Posted by Robin Smith on February 14, 2005, 1:44 pm
Thanks guys some good points, I feel better educated about the case for
hybrid now, especially given that official figures dont factor in the
special items already mentioned, which can only make the case better
Couple of things though:
* I did a study and comparing Govt official figures it seems a ford Focus
1.8 turbo diesel with direct injection emits 50% more CO2 than the prius and
overall consumption is still 20% better for the Prius. This does not factor
the above special items. So its still significantly better using a Hybrid
over the state of the art diesel available
* About hydrogen, I agree its a long shot and a great effort. But I think I
would prefer the associated expense and trade offs, rather than wait for the
water to start lapping at the front door step(I live 75m about MSL so should
be OK, but not so for those living 10M or less above MSL after the next 30
years or so) For more data on this point please see
http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm
BTW I'm by no means a tree hugging green. Nuclear seems the only way to
resolve this, Kyoto is a nice try but naive. Lets not go there (:
Rgds
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:49:17 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
> snip
> >Be aware *all* cars suffer the "real world" losses in fuel economy the
Prius
> >does. A significant part of every tank of fuel goes into something other
> >than covering miles: heating or cooling the occupants, keeping lights
lit.
> snip
> Right. A round trip from point A to point B and back will consume a
> certain amount of fuel, be it gasoline, propane, diesel, or
> electricity. ALL of the energy released by the propulsion process in
> using up that amount of fuel ends up as waste heat (internal energy)
> discharged to the atmosphere. That's the price we pay for moving our
> butts around the planet.
> The trick is to maximize or optimize the efficiency of the conversion
> process (energy to work) and keep parasitic losses, such as excess
> weight, tire friction, internal engine friction, electrical losses,
> pumping losses and air drag to a minimum. That is, very simply,
> strive for the highest MPG possible.
> The Prius, by using a small engine with electric motor boosts as
> needed, stopping the engine instead of letting it idle when the
> vehicle is stopped, and utilizing regenerative braking has shown the
> way to go. I think it is definitely the wave of the future made
> possible by computer control.
> By the way Robin, forget hydrogen as a significant replacement for
> petroleum based fuel. Ain't going to happen. One man's opinion, but
> I know a lot about what would be involved in attempting that. There's
> no good answer for replacing petroleum based fuels. We're in an
> ever-tightening bind.
> Rod
Posted by Rod on February 14, 2005, 3:38 pm
wrote:
snip
>* About hydrogen, I agree its a long shot and a great effort. But I think I
>would prefer the associated expense and trade offs, rather than wait for the
>water to start lapping at the front door step(I live 75m about MSL so should
>be OK, but not so for those living 10M or less above MSL after the next 30
>years or so) For more data on this point please see
>http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm
>BTW I'm by no means a tree hugging green. Nuclear seems the only way to
>resolve this, Kyoto is a nice try but naive. Lets not go there (:
Thanks for the site reference. Very interesting. I'm going to check
that out when I have more time. We are on the same track. I don't
want to clutter this group with off-topic messages, but this is not
exactly off-topic.
I am in total agreement that clean nuclear is the way to go, but I'm
sure you know the limitations there. Are you an engineer? You sound
like one. I'm a Chem E, retired prof, with a deep oil and shallow
nuclear background.
Incidentally, it's not a good idea to post your email address in
newsgroups. You'll get on the spam lists and who knows what else.
Note how some posters disguise theirs. I don't put mine up at all.
Rod
Posted by Robin Smith on February 16, 2005, 12:53 pm
Rod, appreciate the spam hint. To close this thread I just like to add the
following
I used to be an engineer in telecomms but moved over to the dark
side(marketing 4 years ago) So I'm in a good position to understand both the
logic and the emotion of these arguments... I hope!
I would also recommend you read some of James Lovelock's articles on EFN and
elsewhere on the web...very good at seperating the logic out of an emotional
debate
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts after you've read a few. My belief
is that its down to every single individual, rich or poor to contribute to
the environment going forward. After all we are the ones that have the most
stake in the air we breath(as opposed to govt and industry who have their
own agendas based on supply and demand)
Mode of operation to date is to blame govt and industry(ie the misused term
globalisation) for these issues. I argue that its me that has the most to
gain or loose,so its me who should step up and contribute to change
Let me know how you get on. I'm thinking about persuing a web community to
pass this message on
rgds
> wrote:
> snip
> >* About hydrogen, I agree its a long shot and a great effort. But I think
I
> >would prefer the associated expense and trade offs, rather than wait for
the
> >water to start lapping at the front door step(I live 75m about MSL so
should
> >be OK, but not so for those living 10M or less above MSL after the next
30
> >years or so) For more data on this point please see
> >http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm
> >
> >BTW I'm by no means a tree hugging green. Nuclear seems the only way to
> >resolve this, Kyoto is a nice try but naive. Lets not go there (:
> >
> Thanks for the site reference. Very interesting. I'm going to check
> that out when I have more time. We are on the same track. I don't
> want to clutter this group with off-topic messages, but this is not
> exactly off-topic.
> I am in total agreement that clean nuclear is the way to go, but I'm
> sure you know the limitations there. Are you an engineer? You sound
> like one. I'm a Chem E, retired prof, with a deep oil and shallow
> nuclear background.
> Incidentally, it's not a good idea to post your email address in
> newsgroups. You'll get on the spam lists and who knows what else.
> Note how some posters disguise theirs. I don't put mine up at all.
> Rod
Posted by Bill on February 15, 2005, 3:57 am
<snip>
>> Now I see the reality in the fuel consumption, its got a long way to go
>> and
>> I'm a little sad about this. I did leave a thread last week about the
>> weight/safety issue and this too still has to be addressed. Again i dont
>> mind sacrificing other budget items to pay for this.
>>
>> rgds
>>
> Be aware *all* cars suffer the "real world" losses in fuel economy the
> Prius does. A significant part of every tank of fuel goes into something
> other than covering miles: heating or cooling the occupants, keeping
> lights lit. In conventional cars a lot of fuel is burned at zero mpg,
> waiting in traffic. Today's hybrids control that part well.
> Mike
I just gave my new Prius a 200 mile break-in run to Minneapolis. It was at
night (lights on), in rain (resistance), 36F (engine ran to heat cab) and
without wind of any consequence. Drove 55 for the first 30 miles (rolling
hills) and averaged 52 mpg, beating the epa rating. Drove the next 170
miles changing speed at 30 minute intervals per dealer's recommendation
running 55, 60, 65 and 70. Averaged 47.2 mpg. As far as I'm concerned, the
50 mpg rating at highways speeds (55 when established) is accurate.
Navigation system brought me precisely to my destination.
Posted by dbs__usenet on February 11, 2005, 6:35 pm
> I see your points but I dont think I made myself clear. I'm interested
> solely in C02 and am looking for the least polluting sensibly sized car
>
If you are interested soley in CO2 emissions, the Prius is King.
There are several measures of effciency. MPG measures just the amount
of fuel needed to move the car a certain distance. The CO2, NOX and
other pollutants generated per mile is a different measure. The Prius
(last year) was the very cleanest in this regard, and the diesels and
other technologies did not come close.
Daniel
> snip
> >Be aware *all* cars suffer the "real world" losses in fuel economy the
Prius
> >does. A significant part of every tank of fuel goes into something other
> >than covering miles: heating or cooling the occupants, keeping lights
lit.
> snip
> Right. A round trip from point A to point B and back will consume a
> certain amount of fuel, be it gasoline, propane, diesel, or
> electricity. ALL of the energy released by the propulsion process in
> using up that amount of fuel ends up as waste heat (internal energy)
> discharged to the atmosphere. That's the price we pay for moving our
> butts around the planet.
> The trick is to maximize or optimize the efficiency of the conversion
> process (energy to work) and keep parasitic losses, such as excess
> weight, tire friction, internal engine friction, electrical losses,
> pumping losses and air drag to a minimum. That is, very simply,
> strive for the highest MPG possible.
> The Prius, by using a small engine with electric motor boosts as
> needed, stopping the engine instead of letting it idle when the
> vehicle is stopped, and utilizing regenerative braking has shown the
> way to go. I think it is definitely the wave of the future made
> possible by computer control.
> By the way Robin, forget hydrogen as a significant replacement for
> petroleum based fuel. Ain't going to happen. One man's opinion, but
> I know a lot about what would be involved in attempting that. There's
> no good answer for replacing petroleum based fuels. We're in an
> ever-tightening bind.
> Rod